Put it in Writing

At the end of this post there will be a chance for you (the audience) to respond, so start thinking about your answers now.

* * * * *

Last night I went to the Globe Theatre and saw a production of Anne Boleyn by Howard Brenton. This is notable for a few reasons: I did the cheap-ticket-groundling thing and stood the whole time (are we just too lazy to do this kind of thing in America?); they don't usually perform non-Shakespeare plays at "Shakespeare's Globe"; the performances were pretty fantastic (and it was fun to see some of the same actors I've seen in other plays in repertory at the Globe - yay, RSC!); and while (or 'whilst', rather) the script was very good, it wasn't completely brilliant (as I would hope from something that signaled a huge departure from the Globe's status quo).

This afternoon I took in a matinee of a French film, Sarah's Key. (I figured it was time I saw something from European cinema, it stars Kristin Scott Thomas, and it looked at least a little depressing - which obviously means it will be good for me.) I thought it was a pretty good film. There was enough English to keep me engaged, I didn't mind the subtitles for the French, Kristin Scott Thomas really is excellent, and I quite liked the interchange of the two story lines. (Also, the girl who plays Young Sarah was riveting.) HOWEVER (spoilers!) - with such a compelling basic story, who decided it needed all the soap opera stuff heaped on top? KST carried her storyline and was always interesting to watch - how much better could it all have been if she'd been given simpler, more emotionally true writing to work with? WHY was there no dramaturg working on this movie?!?*

The point: excellent acting can elevate almost any piece of writing (a phenomenon we see with nearly everything Peter Gallagher** does, for example) - but the talented presentation of a piece of work does not generally make the work itself any better***. Wouldn't it be more effective to produce pieces of really good writing showcased by really good acting? I know this seems obvious, but if it's so clear why isn't it happening more? Avatar = great production values, terrible script. Twilight = built-in fan base, all the money they could use for the production - they couldn't afford quality writers? I don't know how many times I've walked home after a show and said "That was nice. Too bad the script wasn't better."

This is an area that at least one group I know of, Pinnacle Acting Company, focuses on - and their intention to produce award-winning and verifiably well-written shows is one reason (I believe) that their productions have been nearly consistently excellent, despite the shoestring budget. They usually manage to recruit skilled, talented actors and directors, true - and even the best theater practitioner benefits from really good source material. (Go see their shows.)

* * * * *

So: what plays would you list as the most "well-written"? You don't necessarily have to be talking about a production, just the play itself. Let's accept that Shakespeare's plays are in a class of their own (although they're certainly not perfect - fodder for a different discussion). Please list your recommendations in the comments: plays you've read, plays you've seen and thought, "Wow, great script - I'd like to read that!", rumors you've heard of really terrific writing...  written 2000 years ago, or written yesterday. (I also accept honorable mentions of the best-written movies, as well.)

Come on people - all suggestions considered!





*And WHY do people keep allowing (SPOILER!) Aidan Quinn to cry on screen? SO. Awkward.


** I call it "the Peter Gallagher Effect". Consider Center Stage II: Turn It Up - it stars two of the least-talented actors I have ever seen (they were obviously cast because they can dance, not because they can deliver a line - any line - effectively), but when they each played a scene with Peter Gallagher it was like they were magically yanked up a few levels closer to his. The power of his charisma (and eyebrows) is such that it makes even the cruddiest of actors seem believeable, if only for that one scene. (If they had been in a scene TOGETHER with PG, I don't know that even his mojo could have withstood the great sucking black hole of badness that is their respective acting ability. But I digress.)


*** One exception I saw recently was a production of Shakespeare's All's Well That Ends Well, in which the direction and one particular performer's interpretation solved, in subtext, the plotting problem that has troubled audiences for many years. Good show.

Review of Anne Boleyn